Author Topic: Exciting news from Shutterstock HQ! (Read 33029 times)

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #75 on:** January 20, 2015, 09:16 »

Quote from: marthamarks on January 20, 2015, 09:00

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on January 19, 2015, 23:45
this will be the reason why such a revolution will never happen. esp when there is no other agency that can produce sales like ss.

You're probably right about that. But if nobody is bold and brave, nothing will ever change and all of us might as well stop bitching and moaning about it.

Since you mentioned that "no other agency... can produce sales like ss"... I just gotta report this:

This morning, checking overnight sales on SS, I had quite a surprise. In my "singles and other" column (where in the past I have gotten as much as $90 for a download and never less than $7) now I find a sale for $.33. That's 33 US cents.

That never happened before, and I wouldn't have thought it was possible, but I guess it is. So my question is… how???

Those are Facebook sales, a deal they announced over a year ago.

marthamarks · « **Reply #76 on:** January 20, 2015, 09:35 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on January 20, 2015, 09:16

Those are Facebook sales, a deal they announced over a year ago.

Thanks for that info. I remember when we discussed that FB deal but hadn't seen anything like this come through before, so I didn't recognize it this morning. Guess there's a first time for everything.

Getting $.33 for a non-sub download is not an "exciting new development" however.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #77 on:** January 20, 2015, 09:43 »

Quote from: marthamarks on January 20, 2015, 09:35

Quote from: Semmick Photo on January 20, 2015, 09:16
Those are Facebook sales, a deal they announced over a year ago.

Thanks for that info. I remember when we discussed that FB deal but hadn't seen anything like this come through before, so I didn't recognize it this morning. Guess there's a first time for everything.

Getting $.33 for a non-sub download is not an "exciting new development" however.

But its not a new development.

I think its a good deal. FB offers the SS images to their customers for free but pays SS for every time an image is use in an add. Only smaller size images are used. As regular sub the buyer can download a full res image for 38 cent and use it in perpetuity, on FB is a limited use of a smaller res, but still get 38 cent. Dont see anything wrong with that deal, never have, never will.

Off topic, apologies.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #78 on:** January 20, 2015, 10:17 »

And the average size of the image is about this size.

melastmohican · « **Reply #79 on:** January 20, 2015, 10:28 »

One day there will be more information on internet telling that there is no money in microstock than sites telling people that it is get rich quick schema. At this point of time people will stop coming and whole business model will collapse. When supply of newbies dries up and more experienced photogs will not return they can only sell old images.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #80 on:** January 20, 2015, 11:35 »

Quote from: michaeldb on January 19, 2015, 21:50

Quote from: pkphotos on January 17, 2015, 21:43
In an ideal world every contributor would delete their account in unison, and the SS would have absolutely nothing. That way they may respect that contributors are their only asset. One day stock photographers/videographers may find a way to use their collective power in a way to gain control or at least respect from the agencies.
We built this city. The images we created are the bricks in the SS/IS/FT/etc billion dollar empire. What if someone created a petition for microstockers whereby we the signers promised that when a total of 5000 of us had signed we would all delete all of our images in unison from the top 3 microstock sites. I would sign it, in blood.

One problem is that we all agreed that we could only delete 10% of our work from Shutterstock per...how long was that period, again?

I think you need a petition that makes specific demands. For example, a new 40¢ tier for SS subs once you've earned $10,000, and 35% royalties pegged to the amount the buyer actually pays, not a flat rate. (I'm just making that up. i don't know whether it would be lucrative or not.) And some sort of demand for iStock...30% royalties for indies and 50% for exclusives? But you have different issues at different agencies, so that would need to be thought out. And iStock is on the way down, so they might not be willing or able to negotiate.

Already you have some success with DPC and people opting out of the exciting $2 Google deal. So people do act on things.

michaeldb · « **Reply #81 on:** January 20, 2015, 15:35 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on January 20, 2015, 11:35

...Already you have some success with DPC and people opting out of the exciting $2 Google deal. So people do act on things.

And I think that enough people deleted images on IS and stopped submitting there that it did hurt them somewhat - although IS did so many disastrous things that it is hard to know exactly what caused their downfall from #1.

As many people have pointed out, we really do have the power to hurt the companies which stop acting in good faith as our agents and start simply exploiting us. But we would have to act together. Is it really impossible that we could?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Exciting news from Shutterstock HQ! (Read 33029 times)

Semmick Photo

marthamarks

Semmick Photo

ruxpriencdiam

melastmohican

Shelma1

michaeldb

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors